Arbitration Law Monthly

Section 12 of the Arbitration Act 1996 permits the court to extend the contractually agreed time limit for commencing arbitration proceedings, albeit under very restrictive conditions. Haven Insurance Co Ltd v EUI Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2494 is an example of that power being exercised in exceptional circumstances where the relevant institutional rules were unclear as to the trigger for the running of time and the institution itself had adopted a practice of recognising the relevant date.

The decision of Males J in Midnight Marine Ltd and Another v Thomas Miller Speciality Underwriting Agency Ltd (The Labhauler) [2018] EWHC 3431 (Comm) was largely a discussion of the correct procedural approach where a judge dismisses an appeal under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (serious irregularity) and an application for permission to appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (error of law) without a hearing, and an oral hearing before a different judge is then held.

The question before Andrew Henshaw QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, in Recydia Atik Yonetimi Yenilenebilir Enerji Uretimi Nakliye ve Lojistik Hizmetleri Sanayi ve Ticaret AS v Collins-Thomas [2018] EWHC 2506 (Comm) was whether a worldwide freezing order against the assets of the defendant and his associated companies should be continued. The purely factual issue was whether there was a real risk of dissipation of assets.

In Airbus SAS v Generali Italia SpA and Others [2019] EWCA Civ 805 the Court of Appeal had to determine whether the arrangements between the parties were governed by an arbitration clause in a Purchase Agreement or by an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a Warranties Agreement in which various terms of the Purchase Agreement were reproduced.

The Singapore Court of Appeal in Marty Ltd v Hualon Corporation (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [2018] SGCA 63, a judgment delivered on behalf of the court by Judith Prakash JA, has broken with a long line of English authority for the proposition that the commencement of judicial proceedings in breach of an arbitration clause does not constitute a repudiatory breach of the clause.